It’s been a rough week here with my younger sister’s very unexpected passing. That has made it hard for me to get more in depth writing done. However, these lyrics came to mind as I was singing during my household chores. I know my sister would have laughed at this song. We enjoyed discussing these kinds of things together.

My recording area is not set up for great singing sound, but it was still fun to do with a karaoke track that I downloaded. And it makes me smile.

(to the tune of You’re No Good, as recorded by Linda Ronstadt)

Feeling better, now that I know

Feeling better ’cause I don’t have to throw

A rock through a window, it’s basic econ

Keynes and Krugman are so very wrong

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

Krugman, you’re so wrong

I’m gonna say it again

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

Krugman, you’re so wrong

He broke a window that was working well

He broke them all hoping that he could sell

More new windows, he stole our money

Now we can’t buy other things we need!

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

Krugman, you’re so wrong

I’m gonna say it again

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

Krugman, you’re so wrong

(interlude)

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented. – Fredric Bastiat

I’m clicking all your links and they don’t really say

What you want me to believe, oh the mind games you play!

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

Krugman, you’re so wrong

I’m gonna say it again

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

Krugman, you’re so wrong

oh, oh

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

You’re so wrong

Krugman, you’re so wroooooong

(musical ending)

Yet for those economists who reject such a notion and instead think that markets can use resources efficiently when they are left alone, there is no upside at all to destructive events. Even though we can imagine situations in which these events confer benefits to particular groups, on net society is always made poorer, because the necessity of applying more labor power — just to return to the status quo in terms of tangible wealth — is a cost of the episode, not a benefit. Other things equal, we are better off when people have to work less to achieve a given level of wealth or flow of consumption. – Robert P. Murphy

(reading taken from this mises.org article by Robert P. Murphy that quotes Fredric Bastiat on his broken window fallacy while clarifying whether or not Krugman claimed that an alien invasion would be good for the economy…)

A couple of weeks ago I happened upon a discussion in a libertarian group where I have gotten to know and like quite a few of the people. One man was asserting that women should not be allowed to vote. I sometimes read these types of discussions to get an idea of people’s perspectives. There were quite a few interesting replies, some interesting because they were thoughtful, others interesting because of the assumptions and/or biases.

I don’t usually comment when it seems the original post is more about trying to get a rise out of people. Plus, if he already had such a low opinion of women, why waste my time. However this time I tried to be funny and quipped, “I’d offer my opinion, but I don’t think you’re interested. ”  I got a couple laughs from others, but the original poster took exception to that comment and basically challenged me to convince him that he is wrong.

Honestly, I had a hard time getting inspired to write about it because I am pretty convinced that he just wants to argue and humiliate. He has since called all women hedonistic. When he tagged me in another post and I answered that I wasn’t sensitive about an assumption he made, he made comments that were obviously taunting. It is quite possible to recognize taunting for what it is without being emotionally manipulated by it. I simply did not return to the thread as I saw no point. Still, a couple of other people indicated interest in what I might have to say, so for them and for the sake of answering this in general, I write.

And just in case someone misunderstands some of my comparisons, my husband and I have had a good working relationship for nearly 36 years. We decided at the beginning of our marriage to not use humor as an excuse for saying mean or belittling things about each other. When we laugh, we laugh together. When we have misunderstandings, we treat each other like adults.

The man who stated women should not be allowed to vote openly claims he is sexist, but still libertarian. To give him the benefit of the doubt, his overall intent might be to highlight that men and women are very different. The trouble is that adding -ist to anything is not going to be understood as simply recognizing differences. Instead, it very strongly indicates that the person who is a (fill-in-the-blank)-ist considers another group of people as inferior to the point of not being equally human. Or at least not adult.

There is no doubt that men and women are biologically different. Biologically, there are only two distinct human sexes, apart from rare genetic malformations which show no evidence of furthering the human race. The foundational biological differences limit men in some ways and women in other ways. For instance, men cannot bear children and women have breast tissue where some days it would be handy to have a few more pectoral muscles!

There are other generalizations that are commonly accepted, such a

Reading together was a central part of life when my children were growing up.  This was enhanced by us teaching them at home. We were able to easily make reading a priority. As such, I have examined how to read with them, how to engage them in reading, and what to read to them quite a bit. Based on this experience, I would like to offer you some ideas on how to read relationally with your child.

I will talk a lot about reading fiction, but most of the ideas can readily be applied to non-fiction as well. I will start with this:

Not all reading is equal.

To be more specific, not all reading material is equally good, plus not all conclusions are equally valid. Just reading does not ensure good information or experience or wisdom.

A good reading experience with your children begins with a good book. A book might be classified as “good” for various reasons. It might be fun or funny. It might be well written. It might inspire. A book is not necessarily good because you were required to read it in institutional school or government educators have deemed it a classic.

When I began to evaluate some of these so-called classic books, such as those by Steinbeck and Fitzgerald, I saw that many of them were dark and hopeless. I began to be suspicious that government book lists were designed to keep students in a state of despair and easily manipulated to accept government programs. So, I decided to only ask my children to read one such book just before they graduated, to prepare them for the sorts of things college classes would require.  .

Until then, the search was on for other books. We found books that were both more fun and less accepting of government propaganda. There were still plenty of things to learn as we read, but it wasn’t boring or like pulling teeth type of learning.

It is generally recommended to read a book out loud that is just above a child’s current self-reading level. This introduces them to new vocabulary and stimulates interest in different books. However, since our children covered a 13 year age span, we varied the exact level of the book, including hilarity such as the Freddy the Pig series (with voices as well as I could) and adventure with The Black Arrow, by Robert Louis Stevenson (which expanded my vocabulary and reading skills!)

There were several variations of reading together that happened in our family.

There is always something horrible going on somewhere. In fact, horrible things seem to happen just about everywhere regularly. Many of these things are the result of humans doing things to each other. Does this mean that we should all be constantly outraged?

When children start to become aware of current events in the world, it can be overwhelming. A lot depends on how the influential adults in their lives respond to such things. Children need parents who can both verbally put things in perspective and model a non-reactionary approach to all the bad news.

Part of the challenge is that outrage sells. Another factor is that outrage can be used to manipulate people. Outrage tends to make any accusation believable and any action justified.

People gravitate toward outrage for the same reason they like a good story – the passion makes them feel alive. Outrage is more tempting than positive feelings because outrage feeds a sense of superiority. It can also provide people with a depth of meaning to their lives that they might otherwise feel lacking.

There are certainly some things that are going to happen to us or in our sphere that will provoke anger or indignation. What we need to teach our children is twofold:

Outrage is bad for your health. It stimulates hormones that are good in an emergency, but will wear a body out if always present in the circulation. Outrage keeps you in state of urgency that distorts priorities, including those for eating and sleeping.

Constant outrage is bad for your relationships. It makes enemies of those who don’t share your outrage. It reduces the chance of good discussion and learning because self-righteous indignation feels better.

In a nutshell, constant outrage is beguiling because it appeals to our baser nature while at the same time masquerading as noble and justified. However, in the end it can only lead to misery, because who can be happy when they are always mad?! Instead, we want our children to have a perspective that gives them hope, as well as fosters peace among all people.

A good place to begin forging a perspective that dispels outrage is to take an honest look at ourselves. We have all done thinsg, accidentally and on purpose, that others could rightly be angry about. We are all limited in our wisdom and ability to rightly discern a conflict that does not involve us. We all make mistakes fairly regularly in word and deed, though we sometimes don’t realize it or admit it until later.

A historic

I had a lot of fun interviewing the man who runs Liberty Minecraft, Nathan Dempsey. Not only did he patiently and succinctly explain it to me, but we had some great conversation about how it can be a fun and interactive way to learn everything from real economics to computer coding. I have to warn you though, after listening, you might want to go play!

libertyminecraft.com

Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, 19th century economist, crushes Karl Marx

Does Technology Destroy Your Child’s Creativity?

Liberty Classroom

time lapse video watching the difference between private and non-private property on Liberty Minecraft

And finally, the proper and very German pronunciation of Eugen von Böhm Bawerk (which I would have looked up ahead of time, but it was a spontaneous part of the conversation!)

Have you heard the joke about young boy who asked where he came from? His mother hadn’t expected that question quite so young, but she took a deep breath and explained human reproduction. Her small son listened patiently, but at the end asked, “But where am I from? Joey is from Georgia.”

When a child asks a why or how  type question, a parent should also ask, “Why?” That is, “Why is the child asking the question?” The answer probably fits into one of these categories:

It is to a child’s and a parent’s benefit if a parent guides a child in how and when the question “why?” is asked. Asking “why?” is basic to the learning process, but it can also be wielded manipulatively.

Asking “why?” is like using a hammer. If it is done the right way at the right time, the results are very helpful. Things come together. If “why?” is swung around carelessly or aimed at things that don’t need it, there will be pain and destruction.

When we help our children learn how and when to ask “why?” we help them to work on relationships and communication, as well as responsibility.

There are two key components to delaying an answer to a child. One is the child knowing he can trust the parent. The other is appropriate parental authority.

I know that many libertarians despise the concept of any authority. While I agree whole-heartedly that no adult should claim authority over another adult, parenting is different. As I have said before, if parents are to be held responsible for the care of their children (which most people agree is proper and necessary), then there has to be a measure of authority given them. Otherwise it is like tying someone’s hands and feet and telling them to swim.

It might help to differentiate between attitudes in authority. To have authority does not mean it is good or okay to be capricious or constantly selfish. Healthy parental authority is used for the good of the child, the good of the parent-child relationship, and the good of whole family.

Every child’s first why question is probably an honest one. Parents are delighted by the child’s lively mind and are happy to interrupt the proceedings in order to pass on knowledge.

Sooner or later a couple of things are likely to happen. One, the child ends up asking a question at a bad time. Two, the child notices that parent